So what do we make of the horrific events in Paris then?

[Drew Peacock]

?

[T_i_B]

1. Well, it's horrific obviously

The first thing to note is that people are sharing the offending cartoons like crazy on social media, so this is already backfiring for the terrorists. All they are doing is making more people hate their religion. And it's the ordinary Muslim on the street who gets it in the neck as a result.

Regarding the whole "free speech" gumph, Who am I, a white guy from Yorkshire who has never got abuse for being a minority, to put a minority's sense of humour to the test? I'm not into censorship or murdering cartoonists, obviously, but I'm also not into poking and prodding other people to make a theological point.

[Drew Peacock]

2. Pretty much agree. Have to say though that I have much more sympathy with

the murdered cartoonists and policemen and their families than I do with people who feel that their sky fairy has been insulted.

And I'm very disappointed with a Bangladeshi friend of mine who refuses to condemn, or even discuss, the matter.

[non sociopath skin]

3. Thanks for that, TiB

I'm still inwardly digesting the horrific events of yesterday (in one of my favourite cities in the entire world) and, like all of us, awaiting the backlash with trepidation. Let's not mince words: for some, this is Christmas come early.

To my mind, it was an appalling act of violence, totally unjustifiable, and I hope that the perpetrators will be swiftly caught and punished with the full rigour of the law.

However, unlike some of those posting "Je suis Charlie" today, I've actually been reading the magazine for many years - I always pick up a copy when I'm in France as it's a fascinating indicator of a certain mode of thought within the French anarchist left which has no real equivalent in Anglo-Saxon societies. For those who haven't seen it, it's a pretty unpleasant read. You'd have to go to the very nastiest right-wing websites to see something equivalent in the UK - jewish stereotypes straight out of "Volkischer Beobachter," graphic illustrations of Christian clergy engaged in sexual acts, One edition not long back had a cartoon feature about "cripples" that it would not have been an idea to view up to three hours after eating a meal ... "Charlie" is not, as some of the media today would have us believe, some blend of "Private Eye," "The Onion," and "Viz". It comes from somewhere much angrier, more intolerant and more sardonic.

That said, these views have a right to be expressed and, as a writer who holds views which are probably diametrically opposed to those of the magazine, I would defend with my life their right to express them.

Mais, non, messieurs. Pardonnez-moi, mais je ne suis pas Charlie.

The Skin

[Drew Peacock]

4. I've never seen a copy of this magazine and hadn't heard of it until

this week, but was under the impression that it is regarded as a left wing publication?

Wikipedia (for what it's worth) says this;

"Charlie Hebdo (French pronunciation: ​[ʃaʁli ɛbdo]; French for Weekly Charlie) is a French satirical weekly newspaper, featuring cartoons, reports, polemics, and jokes. Irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, the publication is strongly antireligious[2] and left-wing, publishing articles on the extreme right, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, politics, culture, etc. According to its former editor, Charb (Stéphane Charbonnier), the magazine's editorial viewpoint reflects "all components of left wing pluralism, and even abstainers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo

[non sociopath skin]

8. From "New Republic" today

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120717/charlie-hebdo-attacks-difference-between-american-and-french-satire?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=TNR%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%20Template%20-%20Jan%208

[Denzil_DC]

6. Three murderous individuals whose actions will no doubt rebound on whole communities.

They'll also be capitalized upon by opportunists with nefarious aims, as they already are.

I have to admit I'm not a fan of the cartoons I've seen. Some of the cartoons that have arisen in the aftermath have been much more cutting and to the point, to my taste anyway. I can only hope the written content of the magazine was of a higher quality.

The whole issue's tended to get sidetracked into a quasi-libertarian argument about whether it's acceptable to pillory Islam, whereas I agree with you that the depictions of "Muslim-looking" people (among stereotyped images of other minorities) are crude - obviously not all Muslims wear turbans and long robes, for instance. The counter-argument would no doubt be that depictions of figures like Hollande are equally crude.

I prefer my satire to have an agenda beyond gratuitous offense, which Private Eye (I'm a subscriber) manages to pull off more often than not by focusing on those with power and influence, rather than outgroups. It does slip up on that, though - I hate the "Chavs" series of cartoons, for instance, for the same reason that it relies on lazy sterotypes of those who have little or no power and influence; there are a few other of its series I'm not a fan of on similar grounds, and they often aren't redeemed by even being funny.

From what I understand, Charlie Hebdo didn't have a very high readership anyway, despite its prominence on Paris newsstands. I expect the next issue will be a best-seller.

It should go without saying that none of this excuses murder, including that of another Muslim who happened to be a policeman.

I don't know if it's a forlorn hope, but maybe a movement will arise like the "I'll ride with you" response to the Sidney cafe siege. That would be a positive development.

[MisterP]

9. the moment I heard "magazine" and "attack" I knew it could be none other than C.H.

my work in newspaper cartoons literally is paying for me to speak at a conference (which will be like one-fifth clergy): I can say as a sociological and historically-confirmed fact that pictures absolutely have power, and absolutely not only for "good" purposes; this doesn't mean that "oh, it's a neutral technique/medium and it just depends on how you use it": it's its own purpose every time; science and technology are analogous--machines aren't innocent, their use is their *purpose*

cartoons reveal how a society thinks but also provides pictures for society to "think with"; they carry ideologies and reveal the past and present of the country they're made in

and it's always good to hear from someone who's *read* what the magazine's offered (since otherwise what one says is cliche rather than opinion)

[LeftishBrit]

5. Truly awful

Having never read the magazine, I can't comment on its artistic, political or moral qualities; but even if it were complete gutter press, this could not justify the hideous violence.

And of course it's just giving the Lepenistes a propaganda weapon on a silver platter.

[non sociopath skin]

7. And nor could I

And what you say about the French fascists is absolutely true.

But to treat the magazine as no more than mildly offensive to many people is a mistruth.

The Skin